6 ms·

The main reason the forest is burning is global warming. There were 3 punishing heatwaves before the fire, it was just a matter of time. A part of the Fontaine

• superfrank 2mo ago
  I don't think the person you're responding to was trying to deny global warming being a factor. I think they're just explaining why this fire is so bad compared to other fires we have seen in France before. I know global warming plays a major role in this, but I still found it interesting to know why this fire seems so bad.
  • markdown 2mo ago
    The pine forests have been there for centuries, so it being pine is no explanation at all for why it's burning so badly now.
    • AlecSchueler 2mo ago
      They've actually been there for less than two centuries, just to be pedantic.
    • applepearlime 2mo ago
      But one pine forest in France has burned badly in the past as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire Did you check for forest fires in the past?
    • superfrank 2mo ago
      It's not, but the original comment never claimed that it was. There have been 4 or 5 pretty massive wildfires in France that I can remember in the last 5 years, but this is the first time they've had to deal with pyrocumulonimbus caused by a wildfire. Global warming was likely a contributing factor for all of those fires, but global warming alone doesn't explain why this one is different. The first comment about the pine isn't answering "why is this happening now?", it answers the question, "why is this fire so much worse?"
    • tirant 2mo ago
      I come from the Mediterranean region and locally we know many explanations for that. Many of those pine forests are relatively new. Pine trees burn frequently, around every 20-30 years. In the past they used to be mixed with many other original trees, but during the recent century reforestation, pines were planted as the single tree species, making fires more prone to happen and more easily to spread. In the past, way more population lived next to the forests, where lumber used to be part of their income, so trees were frequently cut, forests maintained and shepherds would bring their sheep to feed from forest lower plants. All of that is gone. In the past, locals used to be able to build firewalls, clean forests and fight fire with fire (provoking small controlled wildfires to stop the big ones). Green policies forbid those actions nowadays. Also, if we talk about past centuries, temperatures used to be higher during early middle age and before. These high temperatures are nothing new in terms of historical forest. Also, looking at the statistics, we’re probably at the bottom number of wildfires per area in the last 70-80 years, while total forest mass has probably increased around 40-50%.
      • mctaylor 2mo ago
        I love how four comments down there is someone posting: "You’re both right. However OPs post is more useful than yours. By now, everyone knows about climate change. But I assume most didn’t know the fact about the pine trees in this area. Nowadays it’s much more about how we deal with climate change and not so much about the fact that there is human made climate change" Thank you for proving that there are, in fact, still climate change deniers even here on hacker news. I'm assuming you're a climate change denier. You don't say so outright, but "Green policies forbid those actions nowadays" is a bit of a dogwhistle that you oppose environmental protection regulations broadly (not merely overzealous ones that have side-effects that make combating certain types of wildfires harder in certain situations), and: "Also, if we talk about past centuries, temperatures used to be higher during early middle age and before. These high temperatures are nothing new in terms of historical forest. Also, looking at the statistics, we’re probably at the bottom number of wildfires per area in the last 70-80 years, while total forest mass has probably increased around 40-50%." Well... that's pretty close to just coming out and saying you don't believe in climate science. This truly is the least intelligent timeline.
    • sandworm101 2mo ago
      Decades ago i was a big wall rock climber. We would often see old photos of mountains and cliffs and remark "where are the trees?" Areas we knew to be covered in forrest were bare only a century ago. This wasnt logging (climbing areas are too rugged to be logged bare.) There were just fewer trees. The general assumption was CO2. The combination of longer growing seasons and more plant food (co2) may mean there are simply more trees.
      • Earw0rm 2mo ago
        The timing is curious to me. Atmospheric CO2 didn't really start picking up bigtime until 1970, and trees, even fast growing pines, take decades to grow.
  • reco98gg 2mo ago
    You may be absolutely right about the OP, I cannot know. Still, I believe it is important to highlight the elephant in the room first. For example to your point: "I still found it interesting to kmow why this fire seems so bad compared to [...] before", I think it is important to state: "because global warming is getting worse over time". Not because pine trees, which have been around for a long time, and have never burned so badly.
    • yoghurtwere 2mo ago
      > Not because pine trees, which have been around for a long time, and have never burned so badly. Are you sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire
      • reco98gg 2mo ago
        I responded to this elsewhere on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49065156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49065156 Basically they had no way to fight those fires at the time, as the article explains.
        • applepearlime 2mo ago
          I can't say that I buy your argument. Either way, firebreaks and green firebreaks seem like they could be a reasonable mitigation approach, whatever the overall causes. Does anyone here know whether the Landes forest has good firebreaks? If not, does anyone here know why? I failed to find anything about it online.
          • cindyllm 2mo ago
            [dead]
          • gabaix 2mo ago
            I grew up there. I used to bike along stretches of firebreaks between plots. These firebreaks are nowhere nearly enough. Trees are young, pine needles spread everywhere, and ground is sandy. The forest is a giant tinderbox.
• kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2mo ago
  Regardless of your view on global warming, what's also vitally important is we don't do proper forest management anymore. We used to thin the trees and clear the underbrush, which drastically reduces flammability and the ability for forest fires to rapidly spread. But that's not seen as "environmentally friendly" these days.
  • bryanrasmussen 2mo ago
    Well, Denmark is I believe a country very big on being seen as "environmentally friendly" and they thin trees, generally to restore habitats and increase diversity of species. What gives?
  • Ma8ee 2mo ago
    Don't put this on the environmentalists when the simple explanation isn't short term cost effective to do this. If you need to put some big blanket blame, then blame capitalism. If nothing else because it has so far stopped all effective measure to stop the climate crisis.
    • Marsymars 2mo ago
      And in other areas, e.g. Canada, "cost prohibitive" is underselling the magnitude of the logistical task of doing anything to the overwhelming majority of boreal forests. There's just so much forest, and no way to access most of it, that it's effectively impossible to do any forest management or anything about most fires. (Most fires don't come near population centres, so nothing need be done about them.)
      • swiftcoder 2mo ago
        I wonder what happened to the sparse and/or nomadic populations that used to inhabit and manage such areas of forest across North America...
        • Marsymars 2mo ago
          Cultural burns are infeasible for forest management at scale. Paywalled, but not too difficult to get access to: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-wildfires-australia-prescribed-burning/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-wildf... "Prescribed burning to reduce fire hazards has been employed throughout large parts of Australia. Yet robust scientific evidence showing that it is effective is remarkably limited. In some places, prescribed burning can reduce fire severity and restrict fire spread for a few years, but afterwards the regrowing vegetation becomes more flammable – an increased fire-risk effect that can last for many decades." "A sobering fact is that prescribed burning makes very little difference in extreme-fire weather – precisely the conditions when most houses are lost and people die. One of us (Prof. Lindenmayer) lived through many weeks of extensive prescribed burns around the town of Marysville in the Australian state of Victoria. Just months later, in February, 2009, the entire town was razed by wildfire; all but a few buildings were destroyed and 34 people died. " "Whilst Australia’s First Nations used cultural fires for hunting, promoting food growth and clearing pathways, it was not used for asset protection. The areas they burned were small and very localized." "The huge scale and often very high intensity of the prescribed burns now being lit are the polar opposite of how First Nations people burnt the land. These massive-scale burns have significant negative impacts on the environment, on human health, and on Australia’s wildlife. For instance, medical data quite clearly show that Australians are far more likely to die from respiratory problems linked with prescribed burning than they are to die in a wildfire." "An important fact – from an analysis of ice cores – is that many megafires have occurred in Australia over the past 2,000 years, even though First Nations people were applying cultural burns." "Beyond the issue of the questionable effectiveness of widespread prescribed burns, scientific studies in Australia show that forests that are logged and then regenerated are characterized by a pulse of elevated flammability that can last for 40 to 70 years.
• baxtr 2mo ago
  You’re both right. However OPs post is more useful than yours. By now, everyone knows about climate change. But I assume most didn’t know the fact about the pine trees in this area. Nowadays it’s much more about how we deal with climate change and not so much about the fact that there is human made climate change.
  • watwut 2mo ago
    > By now, everyone knows about climate change. Not true, I have seen people deny it on HN recently. And looking at other debates, yes it is necessary to reiterate the primary cause. Because centrists will absolutely use the lack of that reiteration to do the "well actually it is the pine trees" in two days.
    • baxtr 2mo ago
      For me, it is more important to fight for human lives than fighting centrists or deniers tbh. You have to pick your battles.
      • pepperoni_pizza 2mo ago
        It is centrists and deniers who are stopping us in implementing effective measures that would fight for human lives.
        • baxtr 2mo ago
          You will not convince them by saying things over and over again. It’s not like they haven’t heard the facts. It might have even have the opposite effect, increasing their unwillingness to believe it’s more than just a hoax. Ask yourself: when was the last time vigorous repetition of a position has convinced you personally? You will convince them by showing them how to do it properly. Show them the way and they might follow.
          • Loquebantur 2mo ago
• MemoryHoleHQ 2mo ago
  [dead]
• ifwinterco 2mo ago
  There’s also a significant amount of pretty sudden local warning in the North Atlantic region because of the sudden removal of sulphur emissions from ships a few years ago (thanks, IMO…). And on top of that it’s El Niño. Edit: Before anyone misconstrues what I'm saying: no, I'm not denying global warming. I'm just saying this is why this summer in particular was always likely to be a hot one in Europe. And going forwards the sulphur thing has most likely caused a step change from temperatures in Europe before Covid, despite underlying warming continuing at the same rate
  • Earw0rm 2mo ago
    The current El Niño hasn't really had time to affect NW Europe yet, there's quite some lag there AIUI.
• svara 2mo ago
  > Le sujet, c’est l’aridification du milieu. Pour revenir à cet incendie, ce n’est pas un problème de culture, mais de climat. A bit of a distinction without a difference. The climate is not changing back, it's the new normal. In that climate, this particular kind of agriculture (huge pine monocultures) has become a problem. It breaks my heart to say this, I've spent nearly all my childhood summers in my family's summer house down there. This year, I left just a few days before the evacuation order would have come. It's going to be burning every year now and if we want to be safe there, the forest can't stay the same.
  • palata 2mo ago
    > The climate is not changing back, it's the new normal. Climate won't get any "new normal" until we reach strictly zero emission. As long as we emit CO2, climate will get worse. There is no new normal: every year it will get worse. It doesn't invalidate your point though, that it cannot stay the same and we have to do something. I'm just nitpicking on the "new normal". There won't be a new normal until we stop emitting CO2, it will just get worse and worse.
• tirant 2mo ago
  Blaming everything on global warming is extremely dangerous. It fails to address many other reasons why we are experiencing fires and creates an easy to blame enemy and a sensation that there's nothing we can do. We should really go way deeper than just blaming everything on an increase of temperatures, which nevertheless is actually happening. We, locals, have been warning already for decades of the increase of fires due to an accumulation of reasons, which I have actually described already in another message down below but I can summarize here. * Forest mass has actually increased a lot during the last decades, Spain has now around 50% more forest mass than in the 1970s. * Part of the increased mass has to do with reforestation efforts done by governments happening since last half of last century, which basically planted many forests using pine varieties which grow very quickly but also burn quickly (Pines are biologically design to burn with their flammable design and dried needles, that's their feature). * Historical local forest were composed of many varieties of trees, including oaks, holm oaks, poplar, which grow slowly, are way less prone to burn, and regrow again after a fire. Those varieties were never used in any reforestation efforts, which has resulted in many new forests being extremely prone to burn quickly * Population has shifted enormously towards big cities, abandoning little villages where forests were part of their style of life. Lumber was part of their economical income, which resulted in continuous care of those forests and efforts in preservation. There are still some communities like that in some areas of Spain, and their forests have the lowest rate of wildfires in the whole country. * Many techniques like firebreaks, counter-fires, low intensity burning to clear crop stubble, dry brush, and old vegetation to regenerate fresh grass for livestock and prepare fields are now forbidden, again increasing the risk and extension of wildfires * Forest Grazing is also nowadays completely forbidden. Sheep used to roam everywhere in the country, consuming many burning-prone vegetation, reducing also the risk of wildfires. But even despite all of that, countries like Spain for example, have nowadays the lowest proportion of burnt forest since the last 50 years.
  • netol 2mo ago
    Hola! While I think this is mostly correct, I don't think it's OK to downplay climate change as just a "blame target". These current and extreme wildfires result from hotter and drier conditions, too. That is a major reason. And yes, we can do something about it. Also, I know that controlled burns, grazing and firebreaks are widely used today in Spain, they are not universally forbidden.
• holoduke 2mo ago
  We have these fires in france since I was born in early 80s. As far as I remember we had them almost every year. Nothing new about it. Doesn't say that global warming doesn't exist. But to shut of any discussion because of global warming is just wrong
  • palata 2mo ago
    Not shutting the discussion of course, but it's important to realise that in the early 80s, that was exceptional. Now it will happen more and more every year, there is no stopping that trend.
  • Arodex 2mo ago
    I am also French, I am also born in the early 80s and I can't understand how someone like you could have such an asinine take. This isn't of the same magnitude. Get out of "vibes" and burying your head in the sand and look at the total surface burnt, look at water levels in nappes phréatiques, look at temperature records and total days of canicule...
  • mytailorisrich 2mo ago
    Depending on the area that has always been the case, indeed. In fact, in the most historically prone areas, the Mediterranean part of France, number of fires and surface area burnt have tended to decrease over time since the 1970s [1], which shows that being prepared works and this experience must now be used in more areas of the country. [1] https://observatoire.foret.gouv.fr/themes/l-historique-des-feux-de-foret-en-france-metropolitaine https://observatoire.foret.gouv.fr/themes/l-historique-des-f...
  • svara 2mo ago
    Absolutely not. I've spent nearly every summer in the last 30 years in that region and it never was like this; it also wasn't that warm. Occasional fires, sure. But very clearly nothing approaching the current scale and frequency. The last really big one in that region was in 2022; and there are currently not one but 2 parallel fires in the same forest.
• howlden 2mo ago
  Can confirm from my own experience that Fontainebleau forest is partly pine forests (40% according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_of_Fontainebleau#Fauna,_flora,_and_funga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_of_Fontainebleau#Fauna,...).
  • Arodex 2mo ago
    And it does burn, but here are the history of fire: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendies_en_for%C3%AAt_de_Fontainebleau https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendies_en_for%C3%AAt_de_Fon... Notice how the last was worse by one or two orders of magnitude. You can handwave all you want the this and the southwest forests are particularly flammable, but what you are pointing out are only "canaries in the coal mines": they are the first to burn, but other forests will follow suit if global warming continues.
• remus 2mo ago
  > A part of the Fontainebleau forest, much more north, no pine trees, went in smoke earlier. Forests are burning near Madrid. Small correction, but Fontainebleau is a fairly mixed forest including 20-30% pine.
  • dolmen 2mo ago
    Small correction, but the area of the Fontainebleau forest where the main fire occurred doesn't have this balance : les Trois Pignons, as name says, has a much higher density of pine trees.
• Kon5ole 2mo ago
  >The main reason the forest is burning is global warming. I get where you're coming from but I don't think this is helpful. Everyone with any sense knows global warming will cause heatwaves and they increase the risk of fires, but nobody in France can do anything about it. Even if everyone in France would do everything they can to stop global warming starting tomorrow, it would change nothing. It wouldn't help even if they got all of the EU on board. What the people of France can do is demand more resources for fire protection, build air conditioned locations for the poor and elderly, plant trees for shade and so on. This can be done immediately and will actually help. It also engages everyone, even a climate denier can get onboard with fighting fires and having shelter for heat. If we stop at "it's the global warming", the response is either apathy or policies. We should prioritize things that will help right now.
  • yostrovs 2mo ago
    Moreover, because the warming is global and the whole world needs to be part of the solution, we need all the governments of the world to agree to some universal plan of action. This is governments that have trouble agreeing on most things within their respective borders, let alone globally.
  • Arodex 2mo ago
    >Everyone with any sense knows global warming will cause heatwaves and they increase the risk of fires, but nobody in France can do anything about it. Even if everyone in France would do everything they can to stop global warming starting tomorrow, it would change nothing. It wouldn't help even if they got all of the EU on board. You are falling for the voting fallacy: "my vote had a miniscule effect on the final result, why should I vote?". The paradox is that at the end, if everyone thinks so, nobody votes. See also: collective action problem.
    • Kon5ole 2mo ago
      >You are falling for the voting fallacy >See also: collective action problem. I think you misread me - I'm not saying "Don't try to stop global warming", I'm saying "Don't focus on global warming when there is a forest fire". The nation of France has a decent chance of preventing forest fires within their borders, but it won't happen by subsidizing electric cars or buying carbon credits. It will happen by adding firefighters, fire trucks, better training and such. I'm not saying one thing has to exclude the other, but in this case they are competing for some of the same money. Carbon credits and big conferences to discuss Paris agreements could pay for a *lot* of firefighters.
• let_rec 2mo ago
  Agree about global warming. However, Fontainebleau forest has many pine trees. In fact there is an invasive caterpillar there that lives in pine trees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_processionary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_processionary The caterpillars are also a consequence of warming.
• rolandog 2mo ago
  To add to your point, it's also worthwhile to mention that there are stakeholders against solving the climate crisis of global warming (besides the usual suspects like producers of non-renewables like oil companies): some countries benefit from the climate change like the US and Mexico (they get higher agricultural yields IIRC) [0]. [0]: https://youtu.be/eRoU3whzX_Q?t=450 https://youtu.be/eRoU3whzX_Q?t=450 ETA: clarification